To search the RPR site click here
PRM PR papers Box 3_2to3
PR papers PRM Box 3
Box 3/2
Box 3/2/1
[Aberlemno Stones} [1] Thoms]
County Buildings
Kirkwall 13 September
1889
Dear Sir
Yours of 8th has reached me here. I remember the pleasure I had in making your acquaintance in my northern dominions. I was so glad while at Lerwick lately to find the Broch of Cleckiminn [2] at last under the Ancient Monuments Act.
I am glad to learn that I can help about the Aberlemno Stones. I may be able to give you a site for them & the protecting cupola but tenants now–a-days fall to be consulted. [?] But for removal of the Stone to the Churchyard I suspect the H... [illegible, see on, typed version suggests Heritors] must be consulted. However I send your letter to my Factors in Forfar (Messrs Myles Solicitors to see what can be done
Yours truly
Geo HM Thoms [3]
General Pitt Rivers
Inspector of Ancient Monuments
Rushmore
Salisbury
Notes
[1] Aberlemno Stones, see http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertydetail.htm?PropID=PL_002
[2] Clickimin Broch, Shetland see http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertydetail.htm?PropID=PL_070
[3] George Hunter Macthomas Thoms (1831-1903), Sheriff of Caithness, Orkney and Shetland from 1870 to 1899 (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/g-hunter-thoms-as-magnus-troil-166289). According to he ‘held the position of 16th Chief, de jure Chief of Clan MacThomas. He was invested as a Fellow, Royal Society of Arts (F.R.S.A.). He was a practising Advocate. He was admitted to Royal Company of Archers. He held the office of Sheriff of Orkney and Zetland. He held the office of Vice-Admiral of the Pentland Firth. He was recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms, and matriculated his arms at the Lyons Office in 1884. He was invested as a Fellow, Society of Antiquaries (F.S.A.) (Scot).’ His home was Aberlemno.
--------------
[Aberlemno Stones
Thoms]
[2]
13 Charlotte Square
Edin. 7 Oct 1889
Dear Sir
I am now back at my moorings here for the winter. I am in correspondence with Mr Powrie of Reswallie, [1] to whom you have written & others as to the steps to be taken as to the Aberlemno Stones. As the most important one & the one suffering most injury is on Mr Webster’s property [2] & you mention in your letter to me of 8th Sept that he is willing to have “them moved to a neighbouring place of safety”. I and my friends would wish to know whether you have this consent in writing. He is so poorly at present that unless this be the case it would be imprudent to move further in the matter at present.
You will I hope excuse me writing this question
Yours truly
Geo HM Thomas
General Pitt Rivers
Rushmore
Salisbury
Notes
[1] James Powrie of Reswallie (1815-1895), Geologist and palaeontologist. http://www.scottishgeology.com/geo/famous-scottish-geologists/james-powrie-of-reswallie-1815-1895/
[2] Patrick Webster (see next letter). See http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/descriptions/112080 ‘Flemington, an estate, with an old castle, in Aberlemno parish, Forfarshire, the property of Patrick Webster, Esq. of Westfield. The castle, standing 300 yards E of the parish church, presents a strong and stately appearance. It was inhabited by the proprietor till about 1830, and afterwards was occupied by farmservants. (F.H. Groome, Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland (1882-4)’. Patrick Webster seems to have died in 1905. His father might have been William Webster who died in 1890, see http://www.ancestor.abel.co.uk/Angus/Aberlemno.html. See also http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/34815/details/flemington+aberlemno/ for a Pictish stone found later on the same site.
------------
[Aberlemno Stones]
[3]
Rushmore
Salisbury
Oct 10th 1889
Dear Sir
When I saw you lately at Flemmington you mentioned that your Father would have no objection to the two sculptured stones on your [insert] his [end insert] property being placed under the Ancient Monuments [insert] Act [end insert] and removed to the Church yard for protection Since then I have been in communication with Sheriff Thoms and Mr Powrie both of whom are much interested in the matter & Mr Thoms has expressed his willingness to give a spot of land near the church yard for the erection of a cupola to protect it.
Before proceeding further however it is necessary to ascertain whether you are in a position to sign the deed of appointment appointing the Commissioners of Works guardians of the monument. I regret to hear that your Father is [illegible] unwell but I should be obliged if you would inform me whether he is well enough to sign the document if it is presented to him or whether you are in a position to act for him in which case I see no reason why the matter should [insert] not [end insert] at once be proceeded with
Your obedient
A Pitt Rivers
[illegible]
Inspector of Ancient Monuments
[illegible]
Patrick Webster Esq
-------------
[4]
Flemington
Oct 22nd 89
Dear Sir
I had your letter about the removal of the Old Stones. As this place is entailed I consulted the other members of my family and I find that they are quite against allowing the stones to be removed off the property but they have no objections to have them put under shelter on the property.
My Father is very poorly but if an arrangement to lift the stones is come to I will sign any document that are required. I am
Yours faithfully
Pat. Webster
Mr A Pitt Rivers
---------------
Rushmore
Salisbury
Oct 28 ‘89
My dear Sir
I enclose an answer just received from Mr Webster by which it will be seen that there is a difficulty about getting the stones moved off the property. I think the best way will be to let the stones be put at once under the Act. This Mr Webster can do by Clause 9 of the Act. After that your Committee will be in a better position to set in whatever direction may be thought desirable.
I enclose by this day’s post a copy of the Aberdeen Journal of the 22nd inst giving an a/c of the Spalding Club [1] which will show you what is being done there in the matter.
Yours very truly
A Pitt Rivers
Notes
[1] Spalding Club see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding_Club
-----------
Envelop marked ‘Anc. Mons, Act. / Aberlemno Stones / (a) Sheriff Thom’s letters / (b) Genl. River’s letter to Mr. Webster / (c) Webster’s (Mr.) Reply
----------------------------------------------------
Box 3/2/2
ABERLEMNO
Plates 78 to 81. Vol I
The former of these two remarkable crosses is in the Churchyard at the west end of the Kirk, and the latter stands by the roadside in an adjacent field. The Tracing refers to one which tradition says was set up to commemorate the fall of the Danes under Camus. There are also stones engraved on Plates 71 & 99. The traced Cross is inserted in a pillar of stone & in both cases there seem to have been Cairns of small stones near the Crosses. Ancient graves were were [sic] very frequently discovered.
--------------------------------------------------
Box 3/2/5
[These letters are obviously typed versions of the letters in Box 3/2/1, they were presumably typed by one of Pitt-Rivers’ assistants]
[complete]
Copy No. 1. From Mr. G. Thomas.
ABERLEMNO STONES.
County Buildings,
Kirkwall,
September 13th, 1889
Dear Sir
Yours of 8th has reached me here. I remember the pleasure I had in making your acquaintance in my northern dominions. I was so glad while at Lerwick lately to find the Broch of Clickanim [sic] at last under the Ancient Monuments Act.
I am glad to learn that I can help about the Aberlemno Stones. I may be able to give you a site for them and the protecting cupola but tenants now–a-days fall to be consulted. But for removal of the Stone to the Churchyard I suspect the Heritors must be consulted. However I send your letter to my Factors in Forfar (Messrs Myles, Solicitors) to see what can be done.
Yours very truly,
Geo H.M. Thoms [3]
General Pitt Rivers, Inspector of Ancient Monuments,
Rushmore, Salisbury
Copy No. 2. From Mr. G. Thomas.
13 Charlotte Square
Edinburgh
October 7th 1889.
Dear Sir,
I am now back at my moorings here for the winter. I am in correspondence with Mr. Powrie of Reswallie, to whom you have written & others, as to the steps to be taken as to the Aberlemno Stones. As the most important one & the one suffering most injuries is on Mr. Webster’s property and you mention in your letter to me of 8th September that he is willing to have them moved to a neighbouring place of safety. I and my friends would wish to know whether you have this consent in writing. He is so poorly at present, that unless this be the case it would be imprudent to move further in the matter at present.
You will, I hope, excuse me writing this question.
Yours truly,
Geo. H.M. Thomas
General Pitt Rivers.
Rushmore, Salisbury.
Copy No. 3. From General Pitt Rivers.
Rushmore, Salisbury.
October 10th, 1889.
Dear Sir,
When I saw you lately at Flemmington you mentioned that your Father would have no objection to the two sculptured stones on his property being placed under the Ancient Monuments Act and removed to the Churchyard for protection. Since then I have been in communication with Sheriff Thoms and Mr. Powrie, both of whom are much interested in the matter, and Mr. Thoms has expressed his willingness to give a spot of land near the Churchyard for the erection of a cupola to protect it.
Before proceeding further, however, it is necessary to ascertain whether you are in a position to sign the Deed of Appointment, appointing the Commissioners of Works Guardians of the Monument.
I regret to hear that your Father is still unwell but I should be obliged if you would inform me whether he is well enough to sign the document, if it is presented to him, or whether you are in a position to act for him, in which case I see no reason why the matter should not at once be proceeded with
Your obediently,
A. Pitt Rivers (Lt. General.)
Inspector of Ancient Monuments
in Great Britain
Patrick Webster Esq
Copy No. 4. From Mr. Patrick Webster.
Flemington,
October 22nd, 1889.
Dear Sir,
I had your letter about the removal of the Old Stones. As this place is entailed I consulted the other members of my family and I find that they are quite against allowing the Stones to be removed off the property but they have no objections to have them put under shelter on the property.
My Father is very poorly, but if an arrangement to lift the Stones is come to, I will sign any document that are required.
I am,
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Webster
General A. Pitt Rivers
Copy No. 5. From General Pitt Rivers.
Rushmore, Salisbury
October 28th, 1889.
My dear Sir,
I enclose an answer just received from Mr. Webster, by which it will be seen that there is a difficulty about getting the Stones moved off the property. I think the best way will be to let the Stones be put at once under the Act. This Mr. Webster can do by Clause. 9. of the Act. After that your Committee will be in a better position to set in whatever direction may be thought desirable.
I enclose by this day’s post a copy of the Aberdeen Journal of the 22nd inst., giving an account of the Spalding Club which will shew you what is being done there in the matter.
Yours very truly,
A. Pitt Rivers
George Thoms Esq
Then there is another exact copy of the above, this time marked ‘Incomplete’ in pencil at the top, with at the end another carbon copy of a typed document:
Ancient Monuments Act. 1882.
The Sculptured Stone on the Road-side opposite the School, Aberlemno, Scotland.
This is not a SCHEDULED MONUMENT.
Office of Works.
November 7th, 1889.
Secretary,
I beg to inform you that the under-mentioned owner has intimated his wish to place the Monument on his property, named below, under the Protection of “The Ancient Monuments Act”.
Monument.—The Sculptured Stone on the Roadside opposite the School. Aberlemno, near Forfar, N.B.
Owner.—Patrick Webster Esq.,
Flemington,
Forfar, N.B.
Description of Monument.—This is a Sculptured Stone with a Cross and Figures in relief; one of the most important specimens of its class in Scotland. The accompanying Photographs of both sides, give only an imperfect idea of it, as I was able to wait for a favourable light for taking them. The Sculptures represent hunting scenes and symbols of the usual type found in Early Christian Crosses in Scotland. [1] It is figured in Stuart’s Sculptured Stones of Scotland.vol I. Plates LXXX & LXXXI.
Condition of monument & damage which it has sustained:--It is in fairly good condition, but in a dangerous position on the roadside exposed to stone throwing from the School Children.
Recommendation:--A Committee has been formed to consider the best means of protecting the Stone. Sheriff Thoms has offered a piece of ground close to the Church-yard and a subscription is proposed to be raised for building a cupola over it to protect it from rain.
After the Deed of Appointment has been signed, a further communication will be made to you, as to the measured proposed to be taken and soliciting a Grant in Aid, but, in the meantime it is important to get it under the Act.
Notes
[1] From this description it would seem that this stone is probably the stone described as ‘Aberlemno Roadside Cross Slab’ described on this site http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertydetail.htm?PropID=PL_002 or ‘Aberlemno 3’ on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberlemno_Sculptured_Stones.
Ancient Monuments Protection Act. 1882.
Sculptured Stones at Aberlemno.
Patrick Webster.
15th April, 1890.
The Secretary (with 86604 & 6605/89)
I prepared a Deed of Appointment in the usual form in respect of the two Monuments and forwarded it to Mr. Webster for execution, and I transmit herewith a Copy of a letter which I have to-day received from him that he will sign the Deed provided that the Stones are not removed from his property. I do not think the Act confers any power on the Commissioners to remove the Stones and Mr. Webster would probably desire some formal intimation from the Commissioners that it is not their intention to remove them.
H. Cuffe
Flemington, Forfar, N.B.,
12th April, 1890.
Sir,
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th current, and also of Deed of Appointment of The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Works and Public Buildings to be Guardians of the Sculptured Stones on my property at Aberlemno.
You are mistaken in stating that I desire to place these Monuments under the guardianship of H.M. Commissioners of Works, &c, but I have no objection to sign the Deed provided that this does not grant power to remove the Stones form my property.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
Patrick Webster.
per James Stewart.
H. Cuffe Esq.,
Solicitor’s Department, Treasury, London.
General Pitt Rivers
What do you advise?
H.R.P. [1] 17th April , 1890.
I see no objection to a formal, intimation being given by the Commissioners of Works that the Stones will not be removed off the property. It frustrates the arrangement originally proposed, viz., that the Stones should be placed on a piece of ground offered by Sheriff Thoms, adjoining the property and adjoining the Church Yard. But if this cannot be carried out, it is nevertheless important to get the Stones placed under the Act, and as soon as this is done I will transmit the correspondence to Sheriff Thoms with a request that his Committee will consider the best means of protecting the Stones upon the property, and state what means, if any, are available locally for carrying it out.
A. Pitt Rivers.
April 21st, 1890.
The Solicitor
Mr. Webster may be informed as General Pitt-Rivers recommends.
H.R.P. 22 Apr.90
Received 23 Apr. 1890
The Secretary
I wrote to Mr. Webster on the 25th April last to inform him that the Stones would not be removed from his property but I have received no further communication from him, nor has he sent me the Deed of Appointment executed.
H.C. 29th January, 1891.
General Pitt-Rivers. H.R.P. 30 Jan. 90
This is one of several instances, in which the owners have changed their mind in consequence of the delay caused by having to lay the case of each Monument before both Houses of Parliament, during Session of Parliament. It should be understood that the owners rarely or never desire to place their Monuments under the Act. They are sometimes persuaded to do so on public grounds, and if taken at once would no doubt sign the Deed of Appointment, but when delay occurs and time is given them to change, they think the matter is not being pursued, and when the Deed of Appointment is sent to them some time afterwards, they frequently refuse or drop the subject.
A. Pitt-Rivers
Feb. 2nd, 1891
Notes
[1] Henry William Primrose (1846-1923) Scottish civil servant, secretary of the Office of Works from 1887 to 1895.
2nd carbon copy of the 2nd version of the typed letters, marked ‘Incomplete’. [not transcribed]
[The following is on usual Office of Works memoranda paper, but carbon copy of typed form above]
[Subject]
Ancient Monuments Act. 1882.
Ancient Monuments Act. 1882.
The Sculptured Stone on the Road-side opposite the School, Aberlemno, Scotland.
This is not a SCHEDULED MONUMENT.
[Memoranda]
Office of Works.
November 7th, 1889.
Secretary,
I beg to inform you that the under-mentioned owner has intimated his wish to place the Monument on his property, named below, under the Protection of “The Ancient Monuments Act”.
Monuments.—The Sculptured Stone on the Roadside opposite the School, Aberlemno, near Forfar, N.B.
Owner.—Patrick Webster Esq.,
Flemington,
Forfar, N.B.
Description of Monument.—This is a Sculptured Stone with a Cross and Figures in relief; one of the most important specimens of its class in Scotland. The accompanying Photographs of both sides, give only an imperfect idea of it, as I was able to wait for a favourable light for taking them. The Sculptures represent hunting scenes and symbols of the usual type found in Early Christian Crosses in Scotland. [1] It is figured in Stuart’s Sculptured Stones of Scotland. vol I. Plates LXXX & LXXXI.
Condition of monument & damage which it has sustained:--It is in fairly good condition, but in a dangerous position on the roadside exposed to stone throwing from the School Children.
Recommendation:--A Committee has been formed to consider the best means of protecting the Stone. Sheriff Thoms has offered a piece of ground close to the Church-yard and a subscription is proposed to be raised for building a cupola over it to protect it from rain.
After the Deed of Appointment has been signed, a further communication will be made to you, as to the measured proposed to be taken and soliciting a Grant in Aid, but, in the meantime it is important to get it under the Act.
A. Pitt-Rivers
This monument has been brought under the operation of the Act being included in an Order of Council dated 8th Feb, 1890, which has now lain for 40 days before both Houses of Parliament.
The Solicitor,
Please prepare usual appointment.
H.R.P. 1st April, 1890
Received 1st April, 1890
2nd carbon copy of the above not transcribed
2nd carbon copy of the correspondence starting with letter from H. Cuffe dated 15 April 1890.
-------------------------------------------------
Box 3/3
Box 3/3/1
[Wolfeton House
Dorchester]
Sept 27/ 87
My dear General
I will communicate at once with the Mayor & will let you know directly. I can [?] as to what he says—
I quite agree with you in thinking it most desirable that the Amphitheatre should be safely preserved for those who will come after us – you shall hear again within a few days.
Yours very truly
Albert Bankes [1]
Our united kind regards to Mrs Pitt Rivers & yourself
Notes
[1] Wynne Albert Bankes (1840-1913), see http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/download/GB0031%20D181. Served in the Royal Navy, went to Trinity Hall, Cambridge, trained as barrister. Closely associated with Dorset County Museum. See http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/sswm/sswm_letters/SSWM_RPR_L52.pdf
-------------
Box 3/3/2
Thurs Sept 29/87
My dear General
Have just heard from the Mayor of Dorchester.
He says that the Amphitheatre is partly in the Boro’ & partly in the Duchy so he thinks the simplest plan will be for you to write a formal letter to him requesting him to assist you by getting [insert] both [end insert] the Permission of his Boro’ Council & also of the Duchy which he kindly offers to do through Mr Holzman [1] the Duchy [insert] of Cornwall [end insert] Secretary.
Mr. Pope promises to write to you also on the subject. [2] Mr. Pope belongs both to the Field Club & to the County Museum & is all in favour of protecting the Amphitheatre.
You can if you like mention this in yr. letter to Mr Pope as it would please him to get him to take all the greater interest in the matter
His address is
Alfred Pope Esq
(Mayor of Dorchester)
Dorchester.
If I can help you further pray let me know
Yours very truly
Albert Bankes
Notes
[1] Sir Maurice Holzmann (1835-1909) Secretary and Keeper of the Records to the Duchy of Cornwall
[2] Alfred Pope, (1842-1934) Solicitor, twice Mayor of Dorchester. He turned Eldridge Pope into a successful family brewing business.
-----------------
Box 3/3/3
[South Walk House
Dorchester]
Sep’r 30: 87
Dear Mr Mansel Pleydell [1]
I am very glad the question of preserving our Amphitheatre as a monument of antiquity has been taken up.
Mr A. Bankes has already written to me, at the request of Gen’l Pitt Rivers on this subject and being in London yesterday I called Mr Holzmann the secy of the Duchy of Cornwall with his letter
The Amphitheatre is the [illegible] of the Duchy & as quasi Crown Lands do not he says require to be protected by the “Ancient Monuments Act” However I would suggest that an application be made direct to him by Genl Pitt Rivers as commissioner under the act: when some definite understanding will doubtless be arrived at. It seems to me most important that so interesting a work should be preserved as a monument of antiquity
Believe me
Yours most truly
Alfred Pope
J.C. Mansel Pleydell
Notes
[1] John Clavell Mansel-Pleydell (1817-1902) Dorset antiquary and neighbour of Pitt-Rivers see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clavell_Mansel-Pleydell
-----------------
Box 3/3/4
[South Walk House
Dorchester]
Sep’r 31: 87
Dear Sir
Both Mr A Bankes and Mr Mansel Pleydell have written me as to the desirability of including our Amphitheatre under the “Ancient Monuments Act” I called on Mr Holzmann the secy of the Duchy of Cornwall yesterday with Mr Bankes letter
He assures me that there would be no necessity of including this work in the act as there being quasi Crown [illegible] there is not the least danger of its ever being disturbed. I think however it would be more satisfactory for you to apply to him direct, his address is
Holzmann Esq
Duchy of Cornwall office
Buckingham Pal
London S.W.
where he says he will duly reply to your letter after looking further into the matter.
And I am sure as speaking [?] on behalf of the Towns people of Dorchester we will be very much obliged if you would do so. As it seems to me that so interesting a monument of antiquity should have every protection afforded it.
Believe me my dear Sir
Yours very truly
Alfred Pope
Genl Pitt Rivers
-----------------
Box 3/3/5
[Whatcombe
Blandford
and Telegraph]
September 22 1887
My dear General Pitt Rivers
I have written to Mr Pope the Mayor of Dorchester about placing the Amphitheatre under the Act and await his reply with some interest. I have pointed out to him the advantage of placing for it statutory protection, & reminded him of the damage it incurred under the South Western Company’s Act and the fatal consequences had the company carried out its first proposal to run the [illegible] right through. I have been [illegible] with Mr Osmon [sic] Fisher [1] at a bed of river quite about 100 feet above the Valley in which a couple of years ago I found the humerus of Elephan. Mr Fisher’s curiosity was stimulated & we had a day together last week – from the grinding part of a molar besides innumerable fragments of tusk. I received a letter from him this morning in which he says he is almost certain the teeth belong to Elephan Meridionalis a species which belongs to the palaeolithic age—contemporary with E. antiquir.. and has never before been found [illegible] but only in the submerged forests off Cromer. This will be another lustre for the Old County! I think I have added a new [illegible] today to our Botanical List [several words crossed out and illegible] It has only been distinguished from the Well known Spagarium [sic 2] Da... [illegible] within the last two years & is christened S. ne...tum. Another interesting addition to the ornithology of Dorset has just been brought to my notice by one of my favourites when mowing machine last from disturbed a Hen Harrier when sitting upon 4 eggs which he took & unfortunately gave to a London lad who took them away with him & I feel are unfortunately lost.
We enjoyed Mrs Pitt Rivers & Alice’s visit here last week very much. Please remember us to both
Believe me
Yours very truly
J.C. Mansel Pleydell
Notes
[1] Reverend Osmond Fisher (1817-1914) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmond_Fisher
[2] Possibly peat moss sphagnum?
------------------
Box 3/3/6
[Whatcombe
Blandford
and Telegraph]
Oct 1 1887
My dear General Pitt Rivers
I enclose you a letter I received this morning from Mr Pope the Mayor of Dorchester. Of which you will see he has called upon the [illegible] Secretary and opened the [illegible] of placing the amphitheatre under the Act. I scarcely think the Prince or his advisors will not [2 words illegible] but not accept the protection the Act offers to protect Monuments
I remain
Yours very truly
J.C. Mansel Pleydell
----------------
Box 3/3/7
Dorchester Dec 1 87
Sir
I did not reply to your note respecting the Amphitheatre earlier, as the Mayor [3 words illegible] I now find him in correspondence with you on the subject Of course I should join in any efforts to keep it intact There is a boundary stone at present on the East side of the bank, it is a thing that I should [3 words illegible] but the Town Surveyor tells me that he is going to post it on the combe of the A... [illegible] still. The boundary stone should be put outside face of the Amphitheatre If you wish to refer to the article &c the illustrations of the Hand of Iron Bronze & other objects found in Balbury [?] Camp Dorset it is in Vol 48 of the Archaeologia. The anchor [?] Bronzes, beast [2 words illegible] that you [6 words illegible]
I am Sir
[4 words illegible]
Ed Cassington [possibly]
To
Genl Pitt Rivers F.R.S.
---------------------------------------------------------
Box 3/3/8
[Nash Mills
Hemel Hempstead]
June 16 1890
My dear Pitt-Rivers
Many thanks for the sight of the enclosed which I return in case you may like to send it to some one else. I do not think that the amphitheatre at Dorchester is one of the monuments under your charge, but I may mention that I have a letter from [illegible] that it is suffering from the turf being worn through and holes being grubbed in the underlying chalk by the boys of the neighbourhood. Is it worth while writing to the Mayor of Dorchester?
Believe me
Yours most truly
John Evans
-------------------
[Copy]
June 293rd 90
Dear Mr Mansell Pleydell
Thanks for sending me the report of your address it is most useful to give a resumé of the scientific work of the year in the way you have done.
I enclose a typed copy of a letter from Mr Evans the President of the Society of Antiquaries about the [illegible] amphitheatre. I moved in the matter of its protection some time ago the Mayor was in favour of putting it under the act but it belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall & the Duchy refused. I know nothing of the damage reported in the letter but it is a pity it should not been looked after. I always now refer such [illegible] to the local archaeological body and some good has been done in that way perhaps you could take it up
Yrs very truly
A Pitt Rivers
---------------
June 293rd 1890
Dear Sir
I enclose a type written copy of a letter from Dr. Evans President of the Society of Antiquaries relating to some damage done in the Amphitheatre in Dorchester and shall be glad if you should find it in your Power to stop the injury complained of. You will remember there was a previous correspondence on the subject
Yours truly
A Pitt Rivers
The first Inspector of Ancient Monuments in Britain
-----------
[Town Clerk’s Office
Dorchester June 26th 1890]
Sir,
The Mayor has handed to me your letter of the 23rd inst. with enclosure relating to certain damage stated to have been committed to The Maumbury Rings or Amphitheatre at this town. A letter has also been received by the Mayor from Mr Henry Moule the Curator of the Dorset County Museum on the same subject. As I think was pointed out in the previous correspondence to which you allude the amphitheatre is the property of The Duchy of Cornwall and the Corporation of Dorchester has no jurisdiction over it which would enable them to take steps for its preservation.
The Mayor however is much obliged to you for drawing his attention to the matter which he has directed me to bring under the notice of the Duchy authorities.
I remain Sir Yours Obed’t Serv’t
H. Symonds
[illegible] Town Clerk
Lieut. Genl. A. Pitt Rivers
Inspector of Ancient Monuments
Rushmore Salisbury
----------------
Box 3/3/9
Envelop marked ‘Amphitheatre at Dorchester / A.M. Act Correspondence
---------------
Box 3/3/10
[Duchy of Cornwall Office,
Buckingham Gate, S.W.]
7th October 1887
Sir,
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday’s date with its enclosure and to inform you that I will submit it at the next meeting of the Prince of Wales’s Council which I expect to take place in the course of the next month.
I think it right to mention at once that the records of the Duchy shew the ancient Amphitheatre at Dorchester, locally known as Maumbury Rings, to belong entirely to the Duchy of Cornwall and I am not aware of a claim having before been raised by the Town Council of Dorchester to any part thereof.
Accordingly the ground enclosed by the ancient walls has been and is still held on tenancy from the Duchy on condition of allowing free access to the public.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
M. Holzmann
Lieut General
A. Pitt Rivers F.R.S.
&c &c &c
-------------------
Box 3/3/11
[Duchy of Cornwall Office,
Buckingham Gate, S.W.]
13th December 1887
Sir,
In accordance with my letter of the 7th October last your application of the previous day for placing under the guardianship of the Commissioners of Works, under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882, the ancient Roman Amphitheatre at Dorchester locally known as Mambury [sic] Rings, has been submitted to a recent meeting of the Council of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and I have been directed to express their regret at being unable to comply with your request.
As your application appears to have been based on the assumption that part only of the Amphitheatre belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall and the other part to the Town Council of Dorchester, I am to inform you that the statement to this effect of the late Mayor, Mr. A. Pope, must have been based on an erroneous impression, which, I am given to understand, is not shared by the present Mayor and other inhabitants of the Town, and that the Duchy Records prove the whole of the Mambury Rings to be parcel of the ancient possessions of the Duchy. The bound stones of the Borough which by sufferance have stood on the mounds merely indicate its limit without implying that the land within such limits is the property of the Town Council.
I am to add that the question of placing the ancient monuments within Duchy possessions under the protection of such an Act as the one referred to above was under consideration in 1873 when a Bill on the subject was first introduced into Parliament, but that after consultation with the Home Office it was then deemed advisable to strike out of the Schedule those monuments including Mambury Rings, which were existing on Duchy lands.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
M. Holzmann
Lieut General A. Pitt Rivers F.R.S.
&c &c &c
-------------
Box 3/3/12
Rushmore
Salisbury
Oct 6th 1887
Sir
I beg to request you will have the kindness to inform me whether the Authorities of the Duchy of Cornwall are willing to place their part of the Amphitheatre at Dorchester which belongs to them under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Act. Being the property of two owners I think it most desirable that its preservation should be secured for the future in the manner I suggest. I have applied to Mr. Pope in reference to the part that belongs to the Town Council & he informs me that he is [insert] & they are [end insert] most anxious to have their portion of the monument put under the Act. It is difficult to conceive how any harm or inconvenience would arise to either owner by carrying out the wishes of the Government in this respect and the monument is one of such great interest that I think no steps should be neglected which are calculated to ensure its preservation.
It has I understand already had one narrow escape during the construction of the railway. I enclose copy of the act which is official & by wh. it will be seen that its inclusion under the act will not in any way affect ownership nor does it establish any right of way
I remain
Sir
Your obedient ..
A Pitt Rivers
Lt General
Superintendent [? sic] of Ancient Monuments in Great Britain
------------------
Box 3/3/13
[Crichel
Wimborne]
Friday
My dear General
Thank you very much indeed for your letter. Maiden Castle [illegible, also underlined] are quite [illegible] likely to do what you like there.
Fig excavate
Motel [?] treats the place as if it were his own property – but must I write a letter to this tenant –
Mr H. Duke-Junice [?]
High East St
Dorchester
and tell him when you are coming that also you have got my permission –
I did [illegible] a lot of things [7 words illegible] quite different
..S
Alington [1]
Notes
[1] This appears to be Henry Gerard Sturt, 1st Baron Alington of Crichel. His home was Crichel House, Wimborne. He was a Conservative MP. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Sturt,_1st_Baron_Alington. His handwriting is almost totally illegible!
----------------
Box 3/3/14
[Bridehand
Dorchester]
13 Brunswick Terrace
Brighton
5 Oct 1887
Mr. Robert Williams presents his compliments to General Pitt Rivers and begs to inform him that he is willing to put the two monuments which he mentions under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Act. If Mr. R.W. is expected to put up a notice board he will be glad to be informed the terms of this notice.
-----------------
Box 3/3/15
[on outside] Amphitheatre
Dorchester
Letter to Mayor of Dorchester on the preservation of
30 Sep. 87
Letter to Duchy of Cornwall
6 Oct. 87
Rushmore
Salisbury
30 Sept 1887
Sir
I write as superintendent of Ancient Monuments in Great Britain under the Office of Works to inquire whether you and the Borough Council are willing to place the Amphitheatre at Dorchester under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Act.
The Amphitheatre has I believe once narrowly escaped destruction during the formation of the railway and as you [insert] are [end insert] yourself personally interested in archaeological matters, it is hardly necessary that I should dwell on the importance of securing so interesting a monument from the possibility of being injured in the future.
I enclose a copy of the Act with a preface which is official by which it will be seen that the act of placing a monument under the guardianship of the Commissioners of Works does not in any way affect ownership nor does it establish any right of way that does not already exist.
I am informed that the amphitheatre is party in the Boro’ and partly in the Duchy of Cornwall but Mr. Banks tells me that you are kind enough to say that you will communicate with the Secretary of the Duchy on the subject. Should you be able to do this and obtain the consent both of the Boro’ Council and of the authorities for the Duchy to having this monument included in the Act, I should be much obliged.
I remain,
Sir,
&c &c
A. Pitt Rivers
(2)
To Mr Holzmann
Duchy of Cornwall
Buckingham Gate, S.W.
Rushmore
Salisbury
Oct 6.87
Sir
I beg to request you will have the kindness to inform me whether the Authorities of the Duchy of Cornwall are willing to place that part of the Amphitheatre at Dorchester which belongs to them, under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Act. Being the property of two owners I think it most desirable that its preservation should be secured for the future in the manner I suggest. I have applied to Mr. Pope, Mayor of Dorchester, in reference to the part that belongs to the Town Council & he informs me that he and they are most anxious to have their portion of the monument put under the Act. It is difficult to conceive how any harm or inconvenience would arise to either owner by carrying out the wishes of the Government in this respect and the monument is one of which such great interest that I think no steps should be neglected which are calculated to ensure its preservation.
It has I understand already had one narrow escape during the construction of the railway.
I enclose a copy of the act which is official and by which it will be seen that its inclusion under the act will not in any way affect ownership nor does it establish any right of way which does not already exist
I have the honour &c
A. Pitt Rivers
----------------------------------------
Box 3/3/16
[The Bristol and District Footpath Preservation Society ...]
4 Exchange East
Bristol 10 June 1893
Dear Sir
A Complaint has been made to our Society that there have been certain wrongful encroachments made upon Hambledon Hill which is I believe in the Parish of Child Okeford not far from Blandford and about two miles or less from Shillingstone Station. I believe that both Hambledon Hill and Hodhill have on the top interesting Roman or British Camps and it is stated that encroachments have been made by the Hon. C.B. Portman. I should be glad to be informed if it is so – that the hill in question (Hambledon) was formerly open land, and also if it is true (as asserted) that it has been wrongfully enclosed.
I should also be glad if you were able to furnish me with the names of persons in your locality who might taken an interest in the matter
Yours truly
Rich’d C. Tuckett [2]
Lieut. General A.H.L.F. Pitt-Rivers
Rushmore Lodge
Salisbury
Notes
[1] Cecil Berkeley Portman (1869-1915).
[2] Richard Clapson Tuckett, founder of the South West of England Footpaths Preservation Society and Honorary Secretary of the Bristol and West of England Academy see http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/b92c2ce0-203a-4f72-85fc-392754ea9dbe.
-------------------
Box 3/3/17
[Tenant Hill Circle]
[Ansd May 18/95]
Alona House, Weymouth
May 6 1895
Sir,
About four miles south of Abbotsbury, on the Duke of Bedford’s estate, there is a very rough irregular circle of stones; it is under “the Ancient Monuments Protection Act.” [1]
The inside are is large – under turf.
Would there by any objection to my digging there in the interest of the Dorset Field Club? Of course I should undertake not to touch a stone, & to make good the ground, also, I suppose it would be necessary to get the Duke’s consent.
I beg to remain
Sir,
Your obd servant
Ed. Cunnington
To
Genl Pitt-Rivers FRS &c &c
Rushton [sic]
Notes
[1] Kingston Russell stone circle, see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/kingston-russell-stone-circle/
--------
Copy
Rushmore
Salisbury
May 18/ 95
Dear Mr Cunnington,
It would of course be necessary in the first place to get the Duke of Bedford’s consent for digging at Kingston Russell. Then you would have to apply to the Board of Works, which might be done through me if you thought proper.
Yrs very truly
A. Pitt Riveres
Ed. Cunnington Esq. [1]
Notes
[1] Edward Benjamin Howard Cunnington (1861-1950) see here
------------------
Box 3 / 3 / 18
Large sealed legal-sized envelope marked 'Dorchester Amphitheatre'
--------------------------------------------------------
Box 3 / 3 / 19
Extract from The Gentleman’s Magazine
1768
A quarter of a mile east of Poxwell near the road from Winfrith Newburgh to Weymouth, are fifteen stones, ranged in a circular form; one or two seem to be wanting on the north-east, or perhaps a vacant space was left for an entrance, some of them are quite level with, others but little above the surface of the ground; two on the south-west are 2 feet high and broad some scarce 1. They are extremely rude, irregular, and full of holes, worn by the weather and time, they stand on a stump, on rising ground, round which are the remains of a shallow ditch, The diameter of the circle is 4 1/2 yards eight or nine paces from this are three or four erect stones, which might perhaps have been the remains of another about 200 yards from these, on the north-east are four larger, which perhaps formed another larger circle, or might have been an a... [illegible] to the former.
------------------
Box 3 / 3 / 20
Tracing
of
Poxwell Circle
by General Pitt-Rivers
Commr for the Act for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments
[2 Tracings]
-----------------
Box 3 / 3 / 21
[on exterior] Anc. M. Act/ Dorset Monuments / Pokeswell Stone Circle
Stone Circle at Pokeswell Dorset
Rushmore
Salisbury
Nov. 2. 1887
Dear Mr Mansel Pleydell
Do you know Co. Cambridge. [1] I am not acquainted with him. He is the owner of a stone circle at Pokeswell near Dorchester which I should like to get put under the act. I will write to him but not knowing him personally it would probably have a better effect if you would not mind taking the trouble of writing to him also. His address is I believe Bloxworth, Wareham.
Yours very truly
A. Pitt Rivers
Notes
[1] This is Colonel Jocelyn Pickard-Cambridge (1828-1900), see https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVM6-Y1BW
-------------------
Box 3 / 3 / 22
Bloxworth House
Wareham
Dorset
6/11/87
Sir
I am in receipt of your letter regarding the supposed Druidical remains at Poxwell. I have always had very much doubt as to its being any thing of the kind – but merely a few stones lying about, the refuse of an old quarry –
The picture of it in the Dorset Antiquary book is very much exagerated [sic] as there are no stones lying about that any one could imagine a Circle had existed –
I do not think under any circumstances (whatever there may be there) that it should be brought under the protection of the act.
I am
Yours obtly [obediently]
Jocelyn P. Cambridge
Colonel
-----------------
Box 3 / 3 / 23
[Whatcombe
Blandford.
And Telegraph]
Nov 7. 1887 [1]
My dear General Pitt-Rivers
I find the Circle of Poxwell belongs to Colonel Cambridge. I will ride over to Bloxworth next week & see him about it. His brother who is not on speaking terms & leaves it to me which I will do promptly. I am [2 words illegible] to him of Mr Lee W... [looks like Worms] letter which is disgraceful & mean writing to attack you in a [illegible] paper just as he is [2 words illegible] coming
With affet. remembrances to Mrs Pitt-Rivers
I remain
Yours very truly
J.C. Mansel-Pleydell
Notes
[1] Although the date appears to be November 7th it does not seem to accord with /21 which tells Mansel-Pleydell who owns the site several days earlier?
---------------
Box 3 / 3 / 24
[Whatcombe
Blandford.
And Telegraph]
November 24th 1887
My dear General Pitt-Rivers
At last I have received Colonel Cambridge’s reply which is as disappointing as possible In the first place he is unable to give the Poxwell Circle [illegible] the [illegible] of the Ancient Monuments Act as he is only Life Tenant, but further adds “Even if I had such I shd have been very much disinclined to do so, as [illegible] a thing 4 handed over to [2 words illegible] by any hand of Government it is then not of our keeping & order” rather vague!! This “keeping & order” [illegible] passing management here not tended & [illegible] the relic a...ing to Col. Cambridges statement to me which he considered to be [2 words illegible]. I read your communication to the Conference [?] of Delegates at Man... a committee with the Brit Association with much interest. You certainly have little help & sympathy. I am laid up & rather obliged to take great care of myself the winter is dealing rather roughly with me. I think Liberal Unionism will look up now the Wolveton matter is removed. I hear on every side how l... [in a different hand lavishly] he bribed the poor [illegible] with his F... & T... B... [2 words illegible] a good picking. We had a small but useful meeting of Liberal [illegible] at Wimborne on Saturday Lord [illegible] & Willy Portman were present. [illegible sentence] our very kind remembrances to Mrs Pitt Rivers
I remain
Yours very truly
J.C. Mansel Pleydell
[Transcriber’s apologies for the failure to transcribe this almost illegible letter]
----------------------------------------------
Box 3 / 3 / 25
Rushmore
Feb 7th 1888
Sir
From the remarks that were made at the meeting of the Dorset Natural History Field Club the report of which appeared in your last number. It would appear [sic] as if I had advocated some lesser scheme for collecting scientific information than that which the Club are able and willing to undertake. This however requires explanation. there can be no doubt that the field club is well regarded in collecting and tabulating information upon all the various subjects that fall within its province and this is sure to be well done under the able guidance of Mr Mansel Pleydell the President. Any recommendations that I have made upon the subject have had had [sic] reference to the Ancient Monuments Act only the carrying out of which in Great Britain has been placed in my hands by the Government. The Act is purely permissive and at present relates to prehistoric monuments only nor does the Government propose to include in the Act all the [insert] purchasable [end insert] Monuments that can be obtained but only the most important ones. It would not be right to saddle the country with the expense of maintaining newer monuments that must be left to local societies to look after. It is possible the scope of the act may be extended hereafter meanwhile neither British nor Roman roads have as yet been included to protect a road would require the voluntary cooperation of all the owners over whose property the road passes, Dorsetshire is not very rich in monuments of the better class of prehistoric monuments
Mr Williams has offered the nine stones at Winterbourne Abbas. [1] Mr Sheridan the Grey Mare and Colts [2] and Kingstone [sic] Russell stone circle has been offered by the Duke of Bedford [3] which I think will be accepted & others no doubt may be added to the list.
[on reverse] Dorset Field Club on the Monuments in County Letter to paper about by Genl. P.R. Feb 7’88
Notes
[1] The nine stones at Winterbourne Abbas see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/the-nine-stones/. Mr Williams appears to be Robert Williams whose seat was at Bridehead, see http://www.weymouth-dorset.co.uk/winterbourneabbas.html and http://www.weymouth-dorset.co.uk/little-bredy.html
[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Mare_and_her_Colts and http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=450303&sort=4&search=all&criteria=grey%20mare&rational=q&recordsperpage=10
[3] Kingston Russell see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/kingston-russell-stone-circle/
------------------------------------------
Box 3 / 3 / 26
[in red ink] Tenant Hill Circle [see note 3 above]
[in pencil] Office
B 6936/ 87
[Number of separate enclosures] Plan and General View of Stone Circle on Tenant Hill, Kingston Russell Farm.
[Subject] Ancient Monuments Act
Stone Circle on Tenant Hill, Kingston Russell Farm near Dorchester.
This is not a scheduled monument
[Memoranda] [written on side] Accepted for O. in C.
Office of Works
Nov. 1. 1887.
Secretary,
I beg to inform you that the under-mentioned owner has expressed his wish to place the monument named below under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Act.
Monument. Stone Circle on Tenant Hill, Kingston Russell Farm, parish of
Owner. The Duke of Bedford
Woburn Abbey, Bedfordshire.
Solicitor. Thomas Wing Esq, Bedford Office, Bloomsbury, London, W.C. * [note at bottom]* to whom the Duke which [insert] wishes [end insert] all further reference on this subject to be made.
Description of Monument. It consists of 18 stones arranged in an irregular circle of about 80 feet average diameter and two stones in line at 180 feet to the S.E. of the centre.
The stones are not large and appear to be prostrate but probably parts of them extend beneath the surface, and the circle appears to be fairly perfect.
Condition of the Monument and Damage which it has sustained. I am not aware of any recent injury having been done to them.
Recommendation for the Protection of the Monument. The usual notice board is all that will be requisite.
Lt. General
Superintendent of Ancient Monuments.
--------------
[in red ink] TENANT HILL CIRCLE
B 6936/ 5. NOV. 87
[Number of separate enclosures] Plan and General View of Stone circle on Tenant Hill, Kingston Russell Farm.
[Subject] Ancient Monuments Act
Stone Circle on Tenant Hill, Kingston Russell Farm near Dorchester.
This is not a scheduled monument
[Memoranda]
Office of Works
Nov. 1. 1887.
Secretary,
I beg to inform you that &c
Monument. Stone Circle on Tenant Hill, Kingston Russell Farm near Dorchester
Owner. The Duke of Bedford
Woburn Abbey, Bedfordshire.
[illegible] Thomas Wing Esq,
Bedford Office,
Bloomsbury, W.C.
to whom the Duke wishes all further reference on this subject to be made.
Description of Monument. It consists of 18 stones arranged in an irregular circle of about 80 feet average diameter and two stones in line at 180 ft to the S.E. of the centre. The Stones are not large and appear to be prostrate, but probably parts of them extend beneath the surface, and the circle appears to be fairly perfect.
Condition &c Monument. I am not aware of any recent injury having been done to them.
Recommendation for the Protection &c.
The usual notice board is all that will be requisite.
A. Pitt Rivers
4963
28 July ‘88
Bedford Office
Bloomsbury
27 July 88
Sir
As the Appointment by His Grace The Duke of Bedford of the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Works &c to be Guardians of this Monument can only be made on the distinct understanding that the Circle is not to be fenced, I shall be obliged by your written assurance to that effect.
I remain &c
Your obedient servant
Thomas T. Wing
B4963
28 July ‘88
[illegible possibly Mr] [illegible]
Stone Circle Tenant Hill.
TT Wing. For written assurance that the Circle will not be fenced
Memoranda
Genl Pitt Rivers report is still with the solicitor to get the appointment executed.
General Pitt Rivers
The Duke of Bedford wished to have this condition inserted in the Appointment but the solicitor saw objections to this being done. I believe there is no intention of placing a fence round the Circle in which case do you see any reason why this assurance may not ben given by this Board
R.O.P/
28 July 88
Secretary
Having regard to the first paragraph of General Pitt Rivers’ report I think there is no reason why we should not give the Duke the assurance he asks for. The other point raised by General Pitt Rivers is a general one which I will have abstracted from this special file
URJ 3 May 88
approved
H.W.P. 3/8
Letter to Mr Wing 7/8/88
7 Aug 88
To T.T. Wing Esq
Bedford Office
Bloomsbury, W.C.
Sir
In reply to your letter of the 27th ult, I am des’d &c to give you the desired assurance that if the stone circle at Tenant Hill, Kingston Russell, be placed under the guardianship of this Dep’t by His Grace the Duke of Bedford, it shall not be fenced be enclosed by a fence
I am &c
HWP
Bedford Office, Bloomsbury, W.C.
13 Aug. 88
Sir,
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant and to inform you that the Duke appointing the Commrs of Her Majesty’s Works &c to be Guardians of this Monument has to day been handed to the Solicitor to the Treasury.
I remain
Sir
Your obed. Servant
Thomas T. Wing
per clg
Deposit appointment
[illegible initials] 14. Aug. ‘88
Deposited DGC 16.8.88
Mr Rivers, for notice board URG 17.Aug.88
The notice board has been ordered at a cost of 25/-
ESR. 8. Sep
Genl Pitt-Rivers
to see
10.Sep.’88
Seen & returned
Sept 19/88
A Pitt Rivers
----------------
Copy
Rushmore
Salisbury
Oct. 1 1887
Lt: General Pitt Rivers presents his compliments to the Duke of Bedford and writes as the Inspector of Ancient Monuments in Great Britain under the Office of Works to inquire whether he is willing to place the stone circle on Kingston Russell Farm, Dorset under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Act. A copy of the Act is enclosed with a preface which is official and by which it will be seen that the act of placing a monument under the guardianship of the Commissioners of Works does not interfere in any way with ownership nor does it establish any right of way. It aims only at securing the preservation of the monument in the future. A tracing of the plan and view of the circle is enclosed.
--------------
[Woburn Abbey]
1887 Oct 13
Dear General Pitt Rivers
I beg to thank you, sincerely, for your letter offering protection to the Stone Circle at Kingston Russell
May I be allowed to place the details of bringing “The Ancient Monuments Protections Act” into operation – in the hands of my Auditor
“Thomas Wing Esq’re
Bedford Office
Bloomsbury
London W.C.
to whom I have written
Believe me
Yours truly
Bedford [1]
Notes
[1] The current Duke of Bedford was Francis Charles Hastings Russell, 9th Duke of Bedford (1819-1891), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Russell,_9th_Duke_of_Bedford
----------------
I see no reason why the stones should ever be fenced round they are low & not liable to any but wilful damage which could be done as well with as without a fence.
I come more & more of opinion that [2 words crossed out and illegible] on a rule Government should confine itself to [word illegible crossed out] off such protection as this act affords by making the destruction of the monuments illegal & by enabling [illegible] to [illegible] summarily as often commented under it [2 words crossed out] and if the [2 words illegible] is of the same opinion I think it should be [2 words illegible] in order that local archaeological & others interested in the monuments may not rel action [3 words illegible] but look after the monuments themselves & apply the act themselves where it is infringed. It is impossible for an Inspector to [3 words illegible] all the monuments placed under the Act and only very great [4 words illegible] to protect them. Govt cant hold itself responsible as this [illegible] applies now to the with the Solicitor I would recommend that a [illegible] should be taken [3 words illegible] of the notice board on a monument is absolutely [illegible] to enable the act to be ...ed [illegible] if not there are [5 words illegible] the notice board has had to the effect of attracting visitors & actually causing damage to be done [5 words illegible] to look after the monuments. If in some cases it cant be depended [2 words illegible] our [illegible] to act I think it would be desirable.
July 29/88 A.P.R.
[Again, apologies, this is obviously a note written by Pitt-Rivers, possibly to himself, and it is in very small, illegible handwriting. It is clear that relates to Pitt-Rivers views on the workings of the Act after 5 years in post, and therefore if it could be decyphered would be interesting!]
[on reverse][23 Mount Street,
Grosvenor Square
W.
Telephone No 3054]
19 December / 87
Sir,
We have the honour to send herewith our account duly receipted tendering our respectful thanks for cheque to hand to day in settlement of same.
Trusting for further commands
We are Sir
Your most obedient servts.
Holland & Sons [1]
R.W.G.
General Pitt Rivers
[1] Pitt-Rivers was presumably using scrap paper as this is a letter from Holland and Sons who were cabinet makers, see http://antiquesworld.co.uk/holland-sons-antique-furniture/
----------------------------------------------
Box 3/3/27
[in red] GORWELL CIRCLE Grey Mare & Colts
B. 6278
7 Oct 87
[Number of separate enclosures] Plan Section and view of the “Grey Mare & Colts.”
[Subject] Ancient Monuments Act
The remains of the Chambered Long Barrow Known as the “Grey Mare and Colts” near Gorwell Dorsetshire
This is not a scheduled monument.
[Memoranda]
Office of Works
Oct 6 ‘87
Secretary
I beg to inform you &c
Monument. The Remains of the Chambered long barrow known as the “Grey Mare and Colts” [1] near Gorwell, Dorsetshire.
Owner. Robert Williams Esq Bridehead, Dorchester and at the present moment, 13 Brunswick Terrace Brighton
Description of Monument. It is the remains of a chambered long barrow similar to Stoney Littleton and Uleybury, but not in such good preservation. Its plan is an elongated heart shape, the long axis being NW and S.E. 87 ft long by 45 ft greatest breadth and about 3ft average height, the largest end being as usual on the south-east, where there has been a chamber of stones to contain the bones of the dead. Two of the side stones, Nos 1 and 4 of the Chamber, 6’2” and 6’6” high respectively stand erect protruding above the mound which probably originally covered them and the cap stone which may probably have been No. 3. Nos. 2 and 4 also probably formed part of the chamber but they are now prostrate. The tops of other stones appear above the surface and very probably a surrounding revetment of small stones may be found beneath the surface. All this in a ruined condition it is the largest monument of the kind in Dorsetshire, and enough of it remains to show its original design. It is worthy on that account of preservation. Chambered long barrows are unusual in Dorsetshire, tho’ the unchambered ones are commonly found.
Condition &c of Monument. The mound is doubtless lower than in its original condition in which state it may probably have covered the whole of the chamber at the south east end, but this is doubtful. It has probably been opened by treasure seekers in ancient times and Mr. Warne in his “Ancient Dorset” says that a former tenant told him he had opened it and found “many bones” and fragments of pottery. No record was kept and it must therefore be included amongst those monuments which have supplied suffered from the vandalism of past ages.
Recommendation &c
The usual notice board is all that is requisite. It is at the side of a field protected on one side by a hedge, and it is found that the other side becomes encroached upon by the plough, upright stones will have to be put to protect it, but this I think is hardly needed at present.
A Pitt Rivers
Lt Genl
Secretary
Referring to my report on the above named monument, I have to inform you that acting under the impression that it was on the property of Mr. Williams of Bridehead and he also being under the same impression, I named him as the owner of the monument. He has however since informed me that it is just off his property and on that of Mr Sheridan of Kingston Russell House, whose consent to placing it under the Act I have now obtained. The Report must therefore be altered as below:-
Owner
A.B. Sheridan Esq [2]
Kingston Russell House
Dorchester
A. Pitt Rivers
Secretary
It will be necessary to include this in an Order in Council. Till his has been done no steps can be taken by this Board
KRC
7.10.87
The Solicitor
Please prepare appointment
URC 11 July 88
Rec’d July 12
The Secretary
I prepared a deed of appointment in the usual form and forwarded it to Mr Sheridan on the 25th July 1888 for execution. I have received no communication from him on the subject and presume he does not intend to place the Monument under the Guardianship of the Commrs and I therefore return the papers herewith.
H. Cuffe 25. February 1889
General Pitt Rivers
URC 26 Feb 89
My letter reporting the consent of the owner to place this monument under the Act was dated Oct. 6 ’87 and owing to delays caused chiefly by Section 10 of the Act of 1882, the Deed of Appointment was not not forwarded to the owner for his signature until July 25 ’88 a period of over 9 months. It is generally not without reluctance thata an owner consents to avail himself of the Act and when so long a period elapses before the legal documents are sent to him, he is liable to change his mind having probably hoped that the matter had blown over and that he would not be further troubled about it. To this cause I attribute the failure in this case, and in the case of the Nine Stones at Winterbourne Abbas.
A Pitt Rivers
20 April 1889
Notes
[2] Algernon Thomas Brinsley Sheridan (1845-1931) see http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=83070473
-----------------
Oct. 6 1887
Sir
I beg to inform you that the undernamed owner has [illegible] to [illegible] in place the monument named below under the protection of the ancient monuments.
Monument the remains of the chambered long barrow known as the Grey Mare & Colts near Golwell Dorsetshire
Owner Robert Williams Esq Bridehead Dorchester & at the present moment 13 Brunswick Terrace Brighton
Description of Monument. It is the remains of a chambered long barrow similar to Stoney Littleton and Uley bury, but not in such good preservation its plan is an elongated heart shape, the long axis being NW and S.E. [insert] 87 ft long by 45 ft greatest breadth and about 3 ft average height [end insert], the largest end being as usual on the south-east end, where there has been a chamber of stones to contain the bones of the dead. two of the side stones, [insert] Nos 1 and 4 [end insert] of the Chamber, [insert] 6’2” and 6’6” high respectively [end insert] stand erect protruding above the mound which probably [insert] originally [end insert] covered them & the cap stone which may probably have been No. 3. Nos. 2 and 4 also probably formed part of the chamber but they are now prostrate the tops of other stones appear above the surface & very probably a surrounding revetment of small stones may be found beneath the surface all this in a ruined condition it is the largest monument of the kind in Dorsetshire, & enough of it remains to show its original design and it is on that account worthy of preservation. chambered long barrows are unusual in Dorsetshire, tho’ the unchambered ones are commonly found.
Condition of Monument & damage it has sustained. the mound is doubtless lower than in its original condition in which state it may very probably have covered the whole of the chamber at the South East end, but this is doubtful. it has probably been opened by treasure seekers in ancient times & Mr. Warne in his “Ancient Dorset” says that a former tenant told him he had opened it & found “many bones” and fragments of pottery no record is kept & it must therefore be included amongst those monuments which have supplied suffered from the vandalism of past ages.
Recommendation for the protection of the monument the usual notice board is all that is requisite it is at the side of a field protected on one side by a hedge, and if it is found that the other side becomes encroached upon by the plough, upright stones will have to be put to protect it, but this I think is hardly needed at present.
the remains of a chambered long barrow known as the Grey Mare & Colts Gorwell Dorsetshire
Secretary
Referring to my report on the above named monument, I have to inform you that acting under the impression that it was on the property of Mr. Williams of Bridehead and he also being under the same impression, I named him as the owner of the monument he has however since informed me that it is just off his property and on that of Mr Sheridan of Kingston Russell House, whose consent to placing it under the Act I have now obtained. The Report must therefore be altered as below:-
Owner
A.B. Sheridan Esq Kingston Russell House
Dorchester
Anc. Mons Act
Gorwell Long Barrow “Grey Mare & Colts”
Consent Report
--------------
[Grey Mare & Colts]
[Bridehead
Dorchester]
24 Oct. 1887.
My dear Genl Pitt Rivers
On 27 Sep you wrote to my Father as Inspector of Ancient Monuments with respect to two places on his property – which he has been glad to have included under the provisions of the Act.
I now find however that a suspicion is correct which I had before – but could not verify till I came down – that one of them is just off the property -- & one that of A.B. Sheridan. It is the long barrow of which I enclose the drawing -- & perhaps you will write to him direct. His address is
Kingston Russell House
Dorchester.
Should you want at any time during the winter to come & look at these or any other monuments about it will give Mr. Williams & myself much pleasure if you will make any use you can of this house.
Besides the two ancient monuments we have close by a curious valley full of (apparently) glacier stones.
Believe me
Yrs truly
R Williams junior
---------------
Nov 1st
Sir
My husband wishes me to say in answer to your note that he would be very glad to place the Long Barrow [2 words illegible] The Grey Mare & Colts under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Act. Apologizing for the delay that has occurred I remain
Yrs truly
M.L. Sheridan [1]
Notes
[1] Mary Lothrop Sheridan, (?-1918) Algernon’s wife. This letter is dated to 1887 by the following letter
--------------
[Rushmore
Salisbury]
March 1 89
Sir
On the 1st Nov 88. Mr Sheridan informed me that you wished to place the Grey Mare & Colts under the Ancient Monuments Act but f []?] a communication received to day from the Office of Works it appears that the usual documents were sent to you for signature and that no reply has been received [5 words illegible] whether you [2 words illegible] to place the monument under the act I think you received a copy of the Act from me
yours obediently
A Pitt Rivers
---------------
[Frampton Court
Dorchester]
9th [?] March 89
Sir
I thank you for your letter but I think it quite unnecessary to place the Grey Mare & Colts under the Ancient Monuments Act, as its quite impossible for any one to hurt it.
Yours obediently
Algernon B. Sheridan
------------------------------------
Box 3/3/28
[in red] Anc Mons DORSET
[Subject] Tenant Hill Circle
Winterbourne Abbas Stones
Gorwell Circle “Grey Mare and Colts”
Dorchester Amphitheatre
Poxwell Circle
Dorset Field Club (on Anc: Mons: in Dorset)
--------------------------------------
Box 3/4/1
[The National Trust ...]
13th July 1899
Dear Sir,
I beg to inform you that the Special Committee appointed to consider the question of obtaining legislative protection for places of historic interest or natural beauty will meet at this address on Wednesday 22nd Feb’y at 5 pm.
At Sir Robert Hunter’s request I enclose the draft of two Bills drawn up by him
Yours faithfully
Ambrose M. Poynter [2]
Secretary
Lt Genl A Pitt-Rivers
Notes
[1] Robert Hunter (1844-1913) solicitor, civil servant and co-founder of the National Trust.
[2] Ambrose Macdonald Poynter (1867-1923) see here
[Copies of the printed draft bills not transcribed but available as scans]
-----------
Transcribed by AP January - February 2015 notes by AP
